Page 1 of 15 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 143

Thread: It's the same old story (Iraq)

  1. #1
    patfromlogan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    6,079


    Yes | No

    Default

    The British commander who seized Baghdad from the Ottoman Turks in March 1917, Gen. Sir Frederick Stanley Maude, told the local citizenry, "Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators."



    >>>Always walk on a bright, wide road. If you choose to live with your right posture, you don't have to go on a dark road or a malodorous place. Oyama

  2. #2
    Balloonknot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    1,653


    Yes | No

    Default

    Oh please Pat, get over it. Iraq will be soooo much better off once this is all over. Accept.

  3. #3
    Registered Member Mr. Donkeypenis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    342


    Yes | No

    Default

    These aren't the same people who ran Iraq in 1917.

    A.K.A MEAT
    "The United Nations is the biggest joke of this century. If each one is trying to assert his own rights there, how can there be a United Nations?"

  4. #4
    Senior Member Justme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    2,677


    Yes | No

    Default

    Pat what is your problem? You don't see what is developing? You are that closed minded?

    Wow!

  5. #5


    Yes | No

    Default

    so?

    --
    Hard work, Patience, Dedication.
    The more you sweat in training, the less you bleed later.
    Have you viddied the horrorshow Martial Arts and Fight Videos and Clips forum yet?

    ironhill - If this is in the wrong forum please flame the shit out of me.

  6. #6
    Osiris
    Guest Osiris's Avatar


    Yes | No

    Default

    His point is that this is merely neoimperialism.

    "You're stuck on a ship in a bottle, quite unique
    You live inside my painting and move once a week
    I switched the art around, my friends are gettin' suspicious"

    Warcloud

  7. #7
    patfromlogan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    6,079


    Yes | No

    Default

    Actually I'm afraid it is a return to good old fashioned colonialism, plain and simple old fashioned grab the goodies and might makes right.


    Here's a bunch of information and propaganda that only odd people like me and a few other crazies seem to like to read.





    “Regime change” in Baghdad would reshuffle the cards and give U.S. (and British) companies a good shot at direct access to Iraqi oil for the first time in 30 years—a windfall worth hundreds of billions of dollars. U.S. companies relish the prospect: Chevron’s chief executive, for example, said in 1998 that he’d “love Chevron to have access to” Iraq’s oil reserves.23

    In preface to the passage of Security Council Resolution 1441 on November 8, there were thinly veiled threats that French, Russian, and Chinese firms would be excluded from any future oil concessions in Iraq unless Paris, Moscow, and Beijing supported the Bush policy of regime change. Ahmed Chalabi, leader of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an exile opposition group favored by the Bush administration, said that the INC would not feel bound by any contracts signed by Saddam Hussein’s government and that “American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil” under a new regime. U.S. and British oil company executives have been meeting with INC officials, maneuvering to secure a future stake in Iraq’s oil.24 Meanwhile, the State Department has been coaxing Iraqi opposition members to create an oil and gas working group involving Iraqis and Americans.25

    Nikolai Tokarev, general director of Russia’s Zarubezhneft, a state-owned oil company, reflected in late 2002: “Do Americans need us in Iraq? Of course not. Russian companies will lose the oil forever if the Americans come.”26 Fears of being excluded from Iraq’s oil riches and losing influence in the region have fed Russian, French, and Chinese interest in constraining U.S. belligerence. These countries nonetheless are eager to keep their options open in the event that a pro-U.S. regime is installed in Baghdad, avoiding the “risk of ending up on the wrong side of Washington,” as the New York Times put it.27

    Rival oil interests were a crucial behind-the-scenes factor as the permanent members of the UN Security Council jockeyed over the wording of Resolution 1441, intended to set the conditions for any action against Iraq. It is likely that backroom understandings regarding the future of Iraqi oil were part of the political minuet that finally led to the resolution’s unanimous adoption. U.S. promises that the other powers would get a slice of the pie, hinted at in broad terms, were apparently inducement enough to win their nod. It is thus unlikely that French, Russian, and Chinese companies will be completely locked out of a post-Saddam Iraq, though they could find themselves in a junior position.



    From Surrogates to Direct Control
    Throughout the history of oil, sorting out who gets access to this highly prized resource and on what terms has often gone hand in hand with violence. At first it was Britain, the imperial power in much of the Middle East, that called the shots. But for half a century, the U.S.—seeking a preponderant share of the earth’s resources—has made steady progress in bringing the Persian Gulf region into its geopolitical orbit. In Washington’s calculus, securing oil supplies has consistently trumped the pursuit of human rights and democracy.

    U.S. policy toward the Middle East has long relied on building up proxy forces in the region and generously supplying them with arms. After the Shah of Iran, the West’s regional policeman, was toppled in 1979, Iraq became a surrogate of sorts when it invaded Iran. Washington aided Iraq in a variety of ways, including commodity credits and loan guarantees, indirect arms supplies, critical military intelligence in Baghdad’s long battle against Iran, a pro-Iraqi tilt in the “tanker war,” and attacks on Iran’s navy.

    Beginning in the 1970s, but particularly in the wake of the 1991 Gulf War, the U.S. supplied Saudi Arabia and allied Persian Gulf states with massive amounts of highly sophisticated armaments. After the Gulf War, U.S. forces never left the region completely. By prepositioning military equipment and acquiring access to military bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar, Washington prepared the ground for future direct intervention as needed.

    In the Persian Gulf and adjacent regions, access to oil is usually secured by a pervasive U.S. military presence. From Pakistan to Central Asia to the Caucasus and from the eastern Mediterranean to the Horn of Africa, a dense network of U.S. military facilities has emerged—with many bases established in the name of the “war on terror.”

    Although the U.S. military presence is not solely about oil, oil is a key reason. In 1999, General Anthony C. Zinni, then the head of the U.S. Central Command, testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee that the Persian Gulf region is of “vital interest” to the U.S. and that the country “must have free access to the region’s resources.”28

    Bush administration officials have, however, categorically denied oil is one of the reasons why they are pushing for regime change in Iraq. “Nonsense,” Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told 60 Minutes’ Steve Kroft in mid-December 2002. “It has nothing to do with oil, literally nothing to do with oil.”

    But oil industry officials interviewed by 60 Minutes on December 15 painted a different picture. Asked if oil is part of the equation, Phillip Ellis, head of global oil and gas operations for Boston Consulting replied, “Of course it is. No doubt.”

    In fact, oil company executives have been quietly meeting with U.S.-backed Iraqi opposition leaders. According to Ahmed Chalabi, head of the Iraqi National Congress, “The future democratic government in Iraq will be grateful to the United States for helping the Iraqi people liberate themselves and getting rid of Saddam.” And he added that “American companies, we expect, will play an important and leading role in the future oil situation in Iraq.”



    Oil Counts in Iraq War Equation
    Regime change might mean a rise in output. For Russia, that could put prices, deals at risk.
    By Warren Vieth
    Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

    Wednesday, 16 October, 2002

    WASHINGTON -- The prospect of military action against Saddam Hussein has touched off an international contest for Iraq's vast oil reserves and has complicated U.S. efforts to cultivate Russia as a major future source of oil.

    Moscow is seeking assurances from Washington that if Hussein is ousted, Western companies won't take away the lucrative oil-field development rights that Russian oil firms negotiated with the Iraqi president's government. Iraq's reserves are second in size only to Saudi Arabia's.

    Industry experts and insiders say the issue has become a potential sticking point in negotiations between the Bush and Putin administrations over Washington's efforts to obtain United Nations backing for its Iraq policy.

    "Russian companies are worried the new regime may discard previously signed agreements and favor the U.S. oil industry," said Fred Mutalibov, an oil-field services analyst for SWS Securities in Dallas. "To get Russia's support, or at least their silent agreement, the United States has to assure that Russian oil interests will be considered once the regime change has occurred."

    But once the facilities are rehabilitated (a lucrative job for the oil service industry, including Vice President Cheney’s former employer, Halliburton) and new fields are brought into operation, the spigots could be opened wide. To pay for the massive task of rebuilding, a post-sanctions Iraq would naturally seek to maximize its oil production. Some analysts, such as Fadhil Chalabi, a former Iraqi oil official, assert that Iraq could produce 8-10 million b/d within a decade and eventually perhaps as much as 12 million.10

    The impact on world markets is hard to overstate. Saudi Arabia would no longer be the sole dominant producer, able to influence oil markets single-handedly. Given that U.S.-Saudi relations cooled substantially in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks—rifts that may widen further—a Saudi competitor would not be unwelcome in Washington. An unnamed U.S. diplomat confided to Scotland’s Sunday Herald that “a rehabilitated Iraq is the only sound long-term strategic alternative to Saudi Arabia. It’s not just a case of swapping horses in mid-stream, the impending U.S. regime change in Baghdad is a strategic necessity.”11



    >>>Always walk on a bright, wide road. If you choose to live with your right posture, you don't have to go on a dark road or a malodorous place. Oyama

  8. #8
    SLJ
    Guest SLJ's Avatar


    Yes | No

    Default

    Wow ! What an arguement.

    I bet you have Saddam Hussein bed covers.

    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Space may be the final frontier,
    But it's made in a Hollywood basement.

  9. #9
    Registered Member Mr. Donkeypenis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    342


    Yes | No

    Default

    So when we liberate Iraq, we get greater access to oil, the Iraqi people become involved in capitalism and start doing buisiness with us. By doing this they use the money to boost and revitalize their economy and stave off the horrible poverty that they have had to endure under Saddam's regime.

    You think that sounds awful? It sounds more like a win-win situation for everyone.

    Everyone wins except China, France and Russia. They were the ones selling chemical and biological arms to the Baath party in the first place.

    Fuck 'em. They don't need a piece of the pie.

    A.K.A MEAT
    "The United Nations is the biggest joke of this century. If each one is trying to assert his own rights there, how can there be a United Nations?"

  10. #10
    patfromlogan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    6,079


    Yes | No

    Default

    So when we liberate Iraq, we get greater access to oil YES THAT IS THE POINT, the Iraqi people become involved in capitalism ADAM SMITH'S INVISIBLE HAND OF THE MARKET ECONOMY WILL BENEFIT THEM I'M SURE and start doing buisiness with us RATHER THAN THOSE HORRIBLE OTHER EARTHLINGS. By doing this they use the money to boost and revitalize their economy and stave off the horrible poverty that they have had to endure under Saddam's regime. THEY WERE ACTUALLY DOING WELL, WITH LOTS OF SOCIAL BENEFITS UNTIL THE GULF WAR 1. BA'ATH IS A SOCIALIST PARTY AFTERALL.

    You think that sounds awful? It sounds more like a win-win situation for everyone.

    Everyone wins except China, France and Russia. They were the ones selling chemical and biological arms to the Baath party in the first place. ACTUALLY POWELL WAS TELLING THE UN ABOUT WMD AND WAS ASKED FOR PROOF, HE TOLD THE UN THAT WE'D KEPT THE RECEIPTS. PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THE ONE THING BUSH SR. AND SADDAM AND OSAMA HAVE IN COMMON IS THEY WERE FUNDED BY OUR TAXES (CIA). THE UNITED STATES GAVE SADDAM WEAPONS, MONEY, AND HE WAS OUR BIG BUDDY, NOT SO LONG AGO.

    Fuck 'em. They don't need a piece of the pie. THIS IS A MIGHT MAKES RIGHT ARGUMENT. THE ONLY ARGUMENT THE PRO PEOPLE REALLY HAVE - WE HAVE THE GUNS SO FUCK YOU, WE GET THE GOODIES. BRILLIANT BASIS (BASES) FOR POLICY. I'M SURE THE AMERICAN EMPIRE, BASED ON GREED AND EXPLOITATION WILL ENDURE JUST LIKE THE ROMAN - HA HA HA - THEY OFFERED LAW, ENGINERING, TRADE, CULTURE, EDUCATION, IRRIGATION, AND SO FORTH. THE US CAPATALISTS OFFER SHITTY WAGES AND DESTRUCTION OF TRADITIONAL LIFE STYLES AND THE ENVIRONMENT. LOOK AT NIGERIA FOR EXAMPLE, OR THE MAQUEADORAS, OR THE CONGO, THE FIRST AFRICAN DEMOCRACY KILLED BY THE US (CIA). OR BETTER YET IGNORE HISTORY AND LIVE IN A FANTASY WOURLD WHERE THE US IS FOR PEACE AND GOODWILL.

    SORRY ABOUT THE CAPITAL LETTERS, I AM TRYING TO EDIT MY/YOUR STATEMENTS DIFFERENTIALLY OR SOMETHING - FUCK IT'S BEFORE DAWN HERE IN UT.

    A.K.A MEAT (THAT'S WHAT MY WIFE CALLS ME...BUT SHE'S ADDS "HEAD" TO IT)


    >>>Always walk on a bright, wide road. If you choose to live with your right posture, you don't have to go on a dark road or a malodorous place. Oyama

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
◮ Top